If we eliminated the 60-vote rule, a vote for a bill would be taken regardless of any obstruction attempts, and senators would be more inclined to want input in that process and ensure some carve outs for their constituents.

Wanting isn't getting. The filibuster requires bi-partisanship. I can see how the majority might want to throw a sop to the minority in order to claim bi-partisan support, but I thnk the minority would rather have the issue of the majority "running rough-shod" over them than some substantive tidbit.

The post-1975 filibuster is a terrible thing, but that says very little about the pre-1975 filibuster, especially given today's media environment. Forcing Senators to hold the floor and show up for cloture votes would make total obstruction impossible. Before creating more substantive carve-outs, the Senate should restore the talking filibuster and requirement that those wishing to continue debate vote to do so. Right now, only those who want to end debate are required to vote at all. That's a very big deal.

Yes, the pre-1975 fiibuster was used to block Civil Rights legislation, but, in case anyone hasn't noticed, LBJ got that legislation passed despite the filibuster. The Voting Rights Act was also passed despite the filibuster. The only thing that needs to be undone is the change in the cloture vote base from "members voting" to "members sitting." The conservative Dems seem OK with that, and I suspect it will happen unless the Republicans cave under the threat of it happening (which is the same thing, really).